Latest / WIXN AM 1460 - Shaw Local Radio / Talk Line 08-10-2026: State Senator Li Arellano Jr. talks state politics

Transcript

Talk Line 08-10-2026: State Senator Li Arellano Jr. talks state politics · WIXN AM 1460 - Shaw Local Radio

0:00
Speaker 1: Hey, there's Souk Valley. Welcome back to the Waking crew
0:02
Speaker 1: here on FM ninety five one and AM fourteen sixty
0:05
Speaker 1: w IXN. It's eight point fifteen on your Monday morning,
0:10
Speaker 1: and that means it's time for talk line and I'm
0:12
Speaker 1: joined on the phone once again by our good friend
0:15
Speaker 1: State Senator Lee Ariano Junior. Well, I guess I should
0:18
Speaker 1: say it's the first time on our phone together. Senator.
0:21
Speaker 1: Usually you're able to make it in the booth, but
0:22
Speaker 1: you're still keeping talk line today and we really appreciate that.
0:27
Speaker 2: Yeah, glad to be here, Glad to be with you.
0:30
Speaker 1: So how is it out there today? I know it
0:32
Speaker 1: started off a little muggy. As any of that cleared.
0:34
Speaker 2: Up, it's still it's still really foggy. So I'm doing
0:40
Speaker 2: a lot of military duty this week in the Quad
0:42
Speaker 2: Cities region and it's viensibility is low, so anybody driving distance,
0:49
Speaker 2: be careful.
0:50
Speaker 1: Well, there you have it, Lee, letting you know, slow down,
0:54
Speaker 1: leave a little early, be careful.
0:56
Speaker 2: You know.
0:57
Speaker 1: Speaking of being careful, we're gonna kind of kick off
1:00
Speaker 1: our talk on state politics today in the area of corruption.
1:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that has taken over all both policy and
1:12
Speaker 2: politics in Springfield here in the state of Illinois, who've
1:15
Speaker 2: kind of had multiple big fiascos pop up, and then
1:21
Speaker 2: as people started begging, it's caused a lot of ripple
1:25
Speaker 2: effects and further information to come out. The Tribute has
1:28
Speaker 2: done a lot of investigative reporting on the Harry Benton
1:32
Speaker 2: sexual harassment scandal, which has now implicated our House Speaker's
1:36
Speaker 2: handling of the matter. It turned out he knew well
1:39
Speaker 2: before the last election, still spent a million and a
1:43
Speaker 2: half dollars to re elect somebody that he knew and
1:48
Speaker 2: had reason to know was a potential abuse of power
1:52
Speaker 2: and sexual harassment U And so now his leadership is
1:57
Speaker 2: being challenged. Not just Republicans. Obviously, the minority Party is
2:02
Speaker 2: normally strong and calling out some potential corruption or ethics
2:06
Speaker 2: issues from the majority party and vice versa. But the
2:09
Speaker 2: Speaker's actually facing a lot of calls from within his caucus,
2:13
Speaker 2: especially from within the Democratic women in his caucus from
2:18
Speaker 2: the House. If you'll recall, that's what brought down Speaker Madigan.
2:22
Speaker 2: People think Speaker Michael Madigan, who let the Democratic Party
2:26
Speaker 2: in Illinois and in the State House for decades, you know,
2:30
Speaker 2: they think he was brought down by corruption. He wasn't.
2:33
Speaker 2: There was sexual harassment, mishandling within his office, and his
2:40
Speaker 2: own caucus throw amount of power for those reasons. So
2:44
Speaker 2: this has really shook Springfield in that the Democratic leadership
2:48
Speaker 2: of the House side, not my Senate side of the
2:50
Speaker 2: House side. This is literally what brought down the last speaker,
2:54
Speaker 2: and a lot of them had spent a lot of
2:56
Speaker 2: time telling the public and female staffers and our own
3:00
Speaker 2: caucage members that we have capolicies and procedures, you know,
3:04
Speaker 2: this is handled now. That's how this news speaker came
3:06
Speaker 2: to power. And it's a bit of data that we're
3:10
Speaker 2: going through all of this again, and so that's really
3:15
Speaker 2: kind of affected a lot of what's being stocked on
3:18
Speaker 2: in Springfield. And of course, Carol Ammons has been indicted
3:23
Speaker 2: by the feeds. Her and her husband, her daughter was
3:26
Speaker 2: already under federal indictments. And that's been really important to
3:32
Speaker 2: me because if you Repolways talked Tosks before, I was
3:35
Speaker 2: very vocal about how legislative initiative grants have been abused
3:39
Speaker 2: in the state of Illinois, how it's become, in my opinion,
3:43
Speaker 2: a point of corruption to grease the budget to get
3:45
Speaker 2: passed and those are exactly the funds that Representative Ammins
3:50
Speaker 2: is accused by the Beets of abusing. So they Democrats
3:53
Speaker 2: give themselves, not Republicans in rural areas, just themselves in
3:58
Speaker 2: the budget millions of dollars about three million per Democratic
4:02
Speaker 2: state senator, a million and a half for Democratic state
4:05
Speaker 2: reps to direct within their districts, which I've already said
4:09
Speaker 2: publicly on the floor and certainly on your show, is
4:13
Speaker 2: already corruption. It is seemed illegal so far in Illinois,
4:17
Speaker 2: I'm not sure clearly an ethical to me though, and Rep.
4:21
Speaker 2: Rammand's is accused of taking the next step, which is
4:23
Speaker 2: if this is her funds to dole out, well, then
4:26
Speaker 2: she made sure her daughter got money on a payroll,
4:28
Speaker 2: which is illegal in Illinois. She made sure she was
4:32
Speaker 2: getting kickbacks according to the BET and gets out of it,
4:36
Speaker 2: redirecting and changing grants to make sure they were going
4:39
Speaker 2: to people who were working with her in this regard.
4:42
Speaker 2: And so that's an issue that's very near and dear
4:44
Speaker 2: to me. In this last budget, that money was all
4:47
Speaker 2: borrowed for that, So it's firrowed money. It's not real money,
4:49
Speaker 2: it's all arying interest. And I asked to be the
4:52
Speaker 2: lead speaker on the Senate floor against that borrowing bill
4:56
Speaker 2: that included these legislative initiative funds. I've posted my speech
5:01
Speaker 2: about that at that time and again when the Rep.
5:04
Speaker 2: Ammon's cads came up. So to me, this was a
5:07
Speaker 2: completely predictable, completely preventable abuse of power that you know,
5:14
Speaker 2: for me, with my background studying corruption and fighting it,
5:17
Speaker 2: I'm more or less assume things like this were going on.
5:20
Speaker 2: So I was completely unsurprised when the vets indicted represented
5:24
Speaker 2: Ammon's and in her family in this scheme, because that's
5:27
Speaker 2: exactly what this kind of what these kind of unethical
5:31
Speaker 2: processes produce. And so that's what I've been speaking a
5:35
Speaker 2: lot about lately. We really need to get our budget
5:40
Speaker 2: process reformed. We need to get to follow the Illinois
5:43
Speaker 2: Constitution's transparency requirements because journalists and the minority party and
5:48
Speaker 2: even the majority party in the public, we all deserve
5:51
Speaker 2: a chance to look at these things in real time
5:53
Speaker 2: and stay happening instead of stuff getting swept under the
5:57
Speaker 2: ruck at the last moment, and then you find out
6:00
Speaker 2: when a federal indictment comes down that oh flow and.
6:02
Speaker 1: Beholdest well to get done right, and you say this
6:06
Speaker 1: could have been preventable, what do you think could have
6:09
Speaker 1: been done to prevent it? And why wasn't it?
6:11
Speaker 2: So there's a number of steps we could take. The
6:13
Speaker 2: first is I would argue, these poor project money that
6:17
Speaker 2: we're borrowing for Illinois can't afford it, you know, which
6:20
Speaker 2: is why they borrowed, they bonded to these money is
6:23
Speaker 2: in the first place. And the reason they do that,
6:26
Speaker 2: and this happened to the federal level too. I'm sure
6:28
Speaker 2: it happens in other states many ways, with different levels
6:32
Speaker 2: of maybe ethical guidelines to it. But the reason they
6:35
Speaker 2: do it is they need to get people to vote
6:37
Speaker 2: for some very ugly budgets. And the way to one
6:42
Speaker 2: of the ways to hurry up votes is you give members,
6:46
Speaker 2: legislative members money to spend in their districts, essentially to
6:51
Speaker 2: make them look good. In my opinion, that's really what
6:53
Speaker 2: it's all about. Incumbent protection. It's normally given to any incumbent,
6:59
Speaker 2: regardless of party, because that's considered the most ethicult way
7:02
Speaker 2: to do it, and that's the way it was done
7:03
Speaker 2: in Illinois under every governor until Pritzker, and I would
7:09
Speaker 2: argue even that needs to go away. There's a big
7:11
Speaker 2: discussion of bear marks and fork rail spending at the
7:14
Speaker 2: federal level. They mostly got away with that, away from
7:18
Speaker 2: it for a long time, and it did make budgets
7:20
Speaker 2: harder to pass. That's the honest truth. When you can
7:22
Speaker 2: hand out money to people to spend in their districts,
7:25
Speaker 2: they're more likely to vote for and otherwise bad budget
7:30
Speaker 2: or bad vote. So I would say that's step one.
7:33
Speaker 2: We need to get rid of that bare minimum. You
7:35
Speaker 2: should not be giving it to anyone based on their
7:38
Speaker 2: party affiliations, and that's an ethical and you should require
7:41
Speaker 2: much more stringent guidelines for what a grant has to
7:44
Speaker 2: meet and give legislative members let's control or even no
7:50
Speaker 2: control over those months. Step two I think to talk
7:54
Speaker 2: about is transparency. So in Illinois about when I was
8:01
Speaker 2: in league, but they ignore the three reading rules of
8:08
Speaker 2: the Illinois Constitution, which requires numerous days between proposed legislation
8:14
Speaker 2: and the teal amendments and changes to a bill so
8:19
Speaker 2: that people have a time to really read it and
8:21
Speaker 2: understand it and give feedback and critique it. And that
8:25
Speaker 2: gives an opportunity to prevent a pup at sunshine. You know,
8:28
Speaker 2: they say it's one of the greatest disinfectants. And everybody
8:31
Speaker 2: takes a look at this, then legislative members are going
8:33
Speaker 2: to behave themselves a little more on how they handle
8:36
Speaker 2: these states. And we don't do that in Illinois, and
8:38
Speaker 2: we haven't done that for a long time, and that
8:41
Speaker 2: means things get snuck in there. Sometimes there are mistakes.
8:45
Speaker 2: There was a big embarrassment with this current budget where
8:50
Speaker 2: I believe it was the Black Chamber of Commerce in Chicago.
8:54
Speaker 2: They accidentally gave them something like five hundred billion instead
8:58
Speaker 2: of five hundred billion because somebody made desimal point heirs
9:01
Speaker 2: And so the governor had to issue a veto of
9:05
Speaker 2: the budget this year and a mandatory veto on that
9:08
Speaker 2: line item so they could get it correct. And that's
9:11
Speaker 2: just you know, nobody had time to read it and
9:13
Speaker 2: they missed it. Other things get missed because it's intentional.
9:17
Speaker 2: Things get stared out, grants get added, extra spending, even
9:21
Speaker 2: new taxes, huge things without any kind of days to
9:26
Speaker 2: read it. So what I have told people is it's
9:29
Speaker 2: absolutely impossible for a state senator in Illinois to do
9:33
Speaker 2: their job with the budget. It's mathematically impossible when they
9:36
Speaker 2: change thousands of pages with only hours to analyze and
9:40
Speaker 2: read it. We're talking really heavy maths in those thousands
9:43
Speaker 2: of paces. This isn't light reading. It is mathematically impossible
9:47
Speaker 2: to do your job. And that applies to the minority party,
9:51
Speaker 2: the majority party. That applies to everybody but a handful
9:55
Speaker 2: of Democratic leaders who get the seed ahead of time.
9:59
Speaker 2: So that needs to cheap and really that shouldn't be
10:01
Speaker 2: allowed under the Illinois constitution anyway, if the Supreme Illinois
10:04
Speaker 2: Springcourts were defended. So that'd be my second thing. And
10:09
Speaker 2: then the third thing is just when we've talked about
10:11
Speaker 2: this before, get rid of Jerry Mandarin and all these
10:14
Speaker 2: political power plays, because that's really what gives people a
10:18
Speaker 2: free pass with very little oversight in the supermajority states
10:23
Speaker 2: to do things that the voters didn't really give them
10:27
Speaker 2: that much power to do. But that has emboldened them,
10:31
Speaker 2: in my opinion, greatly. They don't believe they are held accountable.
10:36
Speaker 2: There's no checks and balances in Illinois other than as
10:40
Speaker 2: we saw with bred Bamman's the federal indictment. It took
10:42
Speaker 2: the feats coming in and that's what it took for
10:45
Speaker 2: Michael Madigan. That's what it's taken for many of these
10:48
Speaker 2: bad actors. At the state level. There are not checks
10:50
Speaker 2: and balances in Illinois state governments because of unethical gerry
10:55
Speaker 2: mandarin and power plays, and it takes outside influences to
10:59
Speaker 2: come in and enforce laws. And if we reinstate ethical
11:03
Speaker 2: representation and reintroduce chex and balances into Illinois government, it
11:08
Speaker 2: will not solve anything by any means, but it will
11:11
Speaker 2: help prevent some of the most egregious cases prevented from
11:15
Speaker 2: having in the first place, or build more pressure more
11:19
Speaker 2: quickly to prevent these n equicable things from happening. But
11:22
Speaker 2: that would be my top three things we need to do.
11:25
Speaker 1: Okay, And you know, I I guess, I got I
11:28
Speaker 1: gotta ask you would you would think that, you know,
11:31
Speaker 1: from the very start, no matter who's you know, making
11:35
Speaker 1: these changes, what what side of the aisle? Uh that
11:38
Speaker 1: making changes that are you know, mathematically impossible for a
11:42
Speaker 1: senator or anybody to be able to read unless they've
11:44
Speaker 1: got a whole team, and then trying to distill that
11:46
Speaker 1: information down to the one person who's making the decision
11:50
Speaker 1: that that's you know, wouldn't shouldn't be something that should
11:53
Speaker 1: have been allowed from the beginning. How what would be
11:55
Speaker 1: needed to change that.
11:59
Speaker 2: So there's a couple of different avenues. The strongest are
12:03
Speaker 2: constitutional amendments. So the Illinois Constitution already requires, for example,
12:08
Speaker 2: for three reading rules, there needs to be three days
12:11
Speaker 2: in three readings of that. So you should have in
12:15
Speaker 2: each team or at least nine days to look at
12:18
Speaker 2: substantial legislation and then you repeat it in the other side.
12:22
Speaker 2: That's already in the constitution, but the Supreme Court has
12:26
Speaker 2: deemed it's not really enforceable that's currently written. So the
12:30
Speaker 2: strongest way to do it would be to pass some
12:32
Speaker 2: constitutional amendments strengthening the enforcement language so that the Illinois
12:37
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, which itself is here commandered and you know,
12:42
Speaker 2: they run for election in Illinois, they're not appointed, so
12:44
Speaker 2: they have they raise money, and they're very partisan. They
12:47
Speaker 2: have their own dynamics that leads them to their conclusions.
12:51
Speaker 2: In my opinion, to make it easier for them to
12:53
Speaker 2: be ethical in their rulings and defend the Illinois constitutions,
12:57
Speaker 2: that would be the strongest way. The next level was
13:00
Speaker 2: pause guiding how this works and in strengthening our ethical
13:07
Speaker 2: requirement so that means more independent inspector general and independent
13:12
Speaker 2: investigators instead of the legislative by the investigating itself. That's
13:17
Speaker 2: happening right now in both the Vent case and the
13:21
Speaker 2: Amon's case, right is essentially legislative leaders are investigating themselves.
13:28
Speaker 2: That's all that will happen in the Benton case. In
13:30
Speaker 2: the Amon's case, because there was a federal indictment, obviously,
13:33
Speaker 2: the federal core process will also play a major role.
13:38
Speaker 2: And then the lowest level would be simply to change
13:41
Speaker 2: rules in the House and Senate. Now they can change
13:43
Speaker 2: those whenever they want, so that's not a very strong response,
13:47
Speaker 2: but it would be better than nothing. So those are
13:49
Speaker 2: the three things, ranged by strongest weakness. The strongest to
13:54
Speaker 2: be put a constitutional amendment before the people of Illinois
13:57
Speaker 2: and let that vote in stronger requirements level would be
14:00
Speaker 2: to change state law and increase the ethics reforms needed.
14:05
Speaker 2: And then the lowest level is simply changed the parliamentary
14:09
Speaker 2: rules for the House and Senate, knowing that they can
14:13
Speaker 2: change the rules back anytime because they have a supermajority.
14:16
Speaker 2: And we've seen that happen. We saw that happen with
14:18
Speaker 2: the Bear's bill. They brought that bill straight to the
14:21
Speaker 2: floor without any committee hearings because with the supermajority, they
14:25
Speaker 2: can overrule their own parliamentarian who told them, you know,
14:29
Speaker 2: you can't do this. You have to have public committee hearings.
14:31
Speaker 2: This is a bill in with two thirds of vote,
14:34
Speaker 2: they can just say no, we're not going to do this.
14:37
Speaker 1: So other than this weakest third option, have we tried
14:39
Speaker 1: any of the stronger two?
14:43
Speaker 2: Not really. There's a lot of discussion of it, and
14:49
Speaker 2: nothing of substance have ever really passed. In fact, that's
14:53
Speaker 2: been one of my biggest peaks of the governor because
14:57
Speaker 2: he ran when he first ran last decade, he ran
15:02
Speaker 2: as a reformer in the Democratic primary, and he would
15:05
Speaker 2: say things like I will veto any partisan maps, and
15:08
Speaker 2: he talked about ethics reforms, and I'll be honest Like
15:11
Speaker 2: I obviously I run as a Republican. I'm conservative, but
15:15
Speaker 2: that doesn't mean I don't have high hopes for a
15:18
Speaker 2: democratic governor. And one of my hopes was that reform
15:21
Speaker 2: can be very bipartisan, and I had hoped he was
15:24
Speaker 2: going to be honest about the reform promises he was making.
15:28
Speaker 2: For example, Governor Quinn, who was also a Democrat. You know,
15:31
Speaker 2: I didn't necessarily support him, but he did some legitimate
15:35
Speaker 2: reforms that I saw Illinois needed and were wise, and
15:39
Speaker 2: I can give him credit for that. And I was
15:41
Speaker 2: hoping Pritsker would be the same thing, that there'd be
15:46
Speaker 2: areas I agreed and disagreed and reform was when I
15:48
Speaker 2: had high hopes that maybe there would be a lot
15:50
Speaker 2: of agreement. He was talking a really good game, and
15:52
Speaker 2: he has not done any of that. In fact, he
15:54
Speaker 2: has pushed back against it, and some things such as
15:58
Speaker 2: legislative Initiative fund had gotten deequally unethical under his leadership.
16:04
Speaker 2: The gerrymandering is even worse than when Madigan did it.
16:08
Speaker 2: Madigan was famous for that, and now we have the
16:11
Speaker 2: worst mass we've ever been graded. That same for the
16:15
Speaker 2: legislative initiative one. Not only are we still doing this
16:17
Speaker 2: Port Borough spending, but they've done it by partisan basis,
16:21
Speaker 2: and and I'm not even sure how that's legal. So, uh,
16:26
Speaker 2: that has not been tried, is my honest response. I
16:29
Speaker 2: think the governor spends a lot of time and money
16:33
Speaker 2: trying to present himself as having done things he had not,
16:36
Speaker 2: not of any serious nature.
16:38
Speaker 1: Okay, And I mean even even before you know Pritzker
16:42
Speaker 1: taking this, I just I just can't imagine why this
16:45
Speaker 1: This just sounds like a serious enough issue that I
16:48
Speaker 1: would think even even well before Pritzker, somebody would have taken,
16:52
Speaker 1: you know, a crack at this, you know. And the
16:54
Speaker 1: first thing that comes to my mind, and this could
16:56
Speaker 1: just be my old you know, journal journalism brain, is
17:00
Speaker 1: that if this is something that can be used by
17:02
Speaker 1: both sides of the aisle to kind of play unfairly,
17:04
Speaker 1: nobody wants to give up the tool, knowing that the
17:07
Speaker 1: other side isn't going to give up their ability to
17:09
Speaker 1: use it either. I'm sure, I'm sure, maybe you know,
17:13
Speaker 1: it could be more to that, but that's where my
17:15
Speaker 1: mind first goes when I think, why hasn't this been
17:18
Speaker 1: taken care of a long time ago? I mean even
17:21
Speaker 1: before Pritzker, Like, you know, why have we not yet
17:24
Speaker 1: changed this when everybody's complaining about it, but everybody's doing it.
17:28
Speaker 1: And my brain first says, well, you know, in an
17:32
Speaker 1: unfair fight, nobody wants to give up their stick, right.
17:36
Speaker 2: I think there's absolutely elements of that, you know. For example,
17:42
Speaker 2: I think Governor Honor, who was the predecessor governor or Republican.
17:47
Speaker 2: I think he had many flaws as well, and he
17:50
Speaker 2: got caught up in some battles that damn were more
17:54
Speaker 2: important than these kind of reforms in the long run
17:57
Speaker 2: for the state. I think that was a bad vision.
18:01
Speaker 2: And I think there were definitely Republicans who defend for
18:05
Speaker 2: pharaoh spending, who defends slate of initiative funds, who like
18:10
Speaker 2: to see them get their fair share, and that makes
18:14
Speaker 2: them maybe hold their punches on Democrats when they take
18:18
Speaker 2: it to even more unethical extremes because their theory as well,
18:22
Speaker 2: the pendulum will swing and maybe we'll get our chance
18:24
Speaker 2: at these funds for our district as well. And to me,
18:28
Speaker 2: even if you believe that, and that's not the way
18:30
Speaker 2: I think, but even if you believe that, that should
18:32
Speaker 2: never for one second make you hold your punches on ethics,
18:36
Speaker 2: not against your own party and not against the other party.
18:39
Speaker 2: And I think it does to your point. I think
18:42
Speaker 2: it makes people, I don't want to say, timid, but
18:45
Speaker 2: more careful about what they say because they don't want
18:47
Speaker 2: to risk their own opportunity to get these funds. And
18:51
Speaker 2: to me, you can pinge on your own integrity a
18:53
Speaker 2: little bit when you couch your language because you're hoping
18:56
Speaker 2: to get some of the action at some point in
18:58
Speaker 2: the future.
18:59
Speaker 1: Sure, I think that's a perfect perfect point to take
19:03
Speaker 1: a short break. Two minutes when we return, we'll be
19:06
Speaker 1: back with State Senator Lee Ariano Junior. Welcome back, Waking crew.
19:10
Speaker 1: It's eight thirty six on your Monday morning, and we're
19:13
Speaker 1: back with more talk line with State Senator Lee Ariano Junior. Senator.
19:18
Speaker 1: One of the points you wanted to bring up today,
19:20
Speaker 1: or at least highlight, was a program from the governor.
19:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the new Fresh program. So this is something
19:31
Speaker 2: that is a little bit problematic here. So there's been
19:34
Speaker 2: a lot of discussion in the news. The BETS added
19:36
Speaker 2: work requirements to SNAP and they also added error rate
19:41
Speaker 2: punishments for states, and those issues kind of get conflated
19:48
Speaker 2: those dynamics. But basically, the FEDS made the program a
19:53
Speaker 2: little more stringent for work requirements for working as adults
19:57
Speaker 2: who are capable of working. A number of people have
20:00
Speaker 2: falling off of staff because they no longer qualify, and
20:04
Speaker 2: for the most part, I'm supporter of that. I think
20:07
Speaker 2: people who are working age and capable of work do
20:10
Speaker 2: need to be looking for work trying to work. That
20:12
Speaker 2: is how it should be. I think that's the healthiest approach.
20:17
Speaker 2: And in the state of Illinois, though, because of the
20:22
Speaker 2: way that governor and the president ever really been going
20:24
Speaker 2: at each other and how all those ambitions kind of
20:28
Speaker 2: impact state policy, there's been a lot of what I
20:32
Speaker 2: consider disinformation about the program and what's happening. And one
20:36
Speaker 2: of these outlets is the Fresh program, which is kind
20:39
Speaker 2: of getting used by the governor to talk about how
20:43
Speaker 2: terrible Republicans are that that's in his actual quotes and
20:48
Speaker 2: taking away all this stuff. And so they created this
20:51
Speaker 2: multi million press program. Or anybody who's lost stamp benefits
20:55
Speaker 2: because of, for example, the work requirements, they get me out.
21:00
Speaker 2: There's no application for it. There is an automatic qualification,
21:05
Speaker 2: there's no background research any of that. As long as
21:08
Speaker 2: you lost SNAP recently, even if it was through the
21:11
Speaker 2: work requirements, whatever the case, you get this money. And
21:16
Speaker 2: so that program is starting. So there's two things. Hey,
21:20
Speaker 2: if you qualify it, by all means, go get the money.
21:22
Speaker 2: While I don't agree with the governor's doing or how
21:24
Speaker 2: he's doing it or the oversight, it is a program
21:28
Speaker 2: and so people should be aware of it. It's a
21:29
Speaker 2: stag program. But I think that also for me gets
21:34
Speaker 2: back to how these kind of reactionary policies or just
21:38
Speaker 2: political discussions are getting turned into policy with very little lost.
21:45
Speaker 2: And on the flip side of that, talking about the
21:47
Speaker 2: air rate, Illinois is currently projected the most about seven
21:51
Speaker 2: hundred million a year and having to start matching SNAP
21:55
Speaker 2: because we have one of the highest air rates in
21:58
Speaker 2: SNAP the food benefits out of all fifty states, and
22:02
Speaker 2: that is money we frankly don't have. So we have
22:06
Speaker 2: this new program that the governor is really pushing to
22:11
Speaker 2: give out the folks who don't meet work requirements. Well,
22:15
Speaker 2: we don't even have money yet budgeted for how we're
22:18
Speaker 2: going to cover the difference for people who really need
22:21
Speaker 2: it and can't work. That's seven hundred million dollars because
22:25
Speaker 2: we haven't gotten our air rate down blowing up and
22:27
Speaker 2: we're going to have to start doing a five or
22:29
Speaker 2: ten percent match because right now, for Illinois, Defense pay
22:34
Speaker 2: one hundred percent of the program and they set the
22:36
Speaker 2: requirements and they pay one hundred percent of it. And
22:40
Speaker 2: that's going to change where if your air rate's too
22:42
Speaker 2: high Illinois over ten percent air rate, states will have
22:46
Speaker 2: to start matching up certain percentage of the fund. So
22:50
Speaker 2: those kind of issues are really a challenge I serve
22:53
Speaker 2: on helping Human Services Committee. I can tell you there's
22:56
Speaker 2: been little to no public discussion with the sense on
23:01
Speaker 2: how we're going to dress that error rate. I don't
23:03
Speaker 2: know how we're doing new programs of new spending when
23:06
Speaker 2: we're not even sure how we're going to fund programs
23:09
Speaker 2: for those we knew no truly needed. That's it's just
23:13
Speaker 2: not a good way to operate. It's a very reactionary
23:15
Speaker 2: way to operate. It's part of why we have a
23:18
Speaker 2: high air rate in the first place. I think we're
23:20
Speaker 2: putting more importance on politics than the actual agency execution
23:24
Speaker 2: of programs. I do think there could have been a
23:30
Speaker 2: space for this program if it was thought out, and
23:32
Speaker 2: if we thought the beats were actually making some mistakes
23:35
Speaker 2: and who was getting these funds, and that's ultimately that problem.
23:38
Speaker 2: The governor has made no attempt to really show why
23:43
Speaker 2: there is a need here in the folks receiving it,
23:48
Speaker 2: more so on the folks that we're not sure if
23:49
Speaker 2: we can fund like there's been no discussions of that level,
23:52
Speaker 2: no oversight. As I mentioned, there's no application for this
23:56
Speaker 2: particular program. You just automatically qualify if you've lost for
24:00
Speaker 2: any reason whatsoever, even if it's because maybe you weren't supposed
24:04
Speaker 2: to get in it anymore and other people needed that money.
24:07
Speaker 2: So that's another program I want to talk about. Just
24:10
Speaker 2: make people aware that the governor is going to be
24:13
Speaker 2: putting out his messaging on this, and I want to
24:15
Speaker 2: push back on that a little bit.
24:18
Speaker 1: Okay, And it's it's like a one time payment thing,
24:21
Speaker 1: right that they're doing, is what it is essentially.
24:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's in no way an actual safety net program.
24:29
Speaker 2: It seems that I shouldn't say in no way. I mean,
24:31
Speaker 2: four hundred dollars is four hundred dollars. Sure, and there's
24:34
Speaker 2: some families that maybe that's that's a big deal too,
24:37
Speaker 2: and the program could have had its use. The problem
24:40
Speaker 2: is we don't have that money, and it's not getting
24:43
Speaker 2: a weighed against needs in any manner. There are no
24:47
Speaker 2: need based criteria in this other than the fact that
24:50
Speaker 2: you've one tt snap and now you've lost it. Does
24:52
Speaker 2: that mean you've got a job and you have income
24:55
Speaker 2: some other family doesn't need it more? We don't know,
24:58
Speaker 2: Like there's there's none of that built into the program.
25:00
Speaker 2: And that's ultimately my biggest problem with this is this
25:04
Speaker 2: seems clearly designed in some of the way that the
25:08
Speaker 2: COVID money did, which is, we don't know who's getting it,
25:11
Speaker 2: we don't know why they're getting it, we don't most importantly,
25:15
Speaker 2: we don't know their need. We're just going to hand
25:16
Speaker 2: it out and then we're going to issue press statements
25:20
Speaker 2: about how great we are for handing out this money.
25:23
Speaker 2: And my guess from the little research that's been done
25:27
Speaker 2: on it is needs will very great. There will be
25:31
Speaker 2: people who get this and it will be very important.
25:33
Speaker 2: There'll be other people who get it and they never
25:35
Speaker 2: should have qualified or snap in the first place, and
25:37
Speaker 2: now we're getting them an extra four hundred bucks when
25:40
Speaker 2: there's other families who needed way more. So that's that's
25:42
Speaker 2: the challenge with these kind of NEETs or handout programs
25:46
Speaker 2: that are really, in my opinion, designed a good, good
25:49
Speaker 2: press release and attack the other party I see.
25:52
Speaker 1: Indeed, do you I mean, do you have do you
25:54
Speaker 1: think that maybe they should have put that that money towards,
25:59
Speaker 1: you know, putting some someone or something in charge of
26:03
Speaker 1: trying to better whittle down, you know, who really does
26:06
Speaker 1: need it, or what would have been a better way
26:08
Speaker 1: to have done to have kind of used this money.
26:12
Speaker 2: I think the best way starting last. I mean, we've
26:14
Speaker 2: known these federal changes were coming for a long time,
26:17
Speaker 2: and the State of Illinois has done nothing at the
26:20
Speaker 2: legislative level. I obviously can't speak for the inside of
26:24
Speaker 2: the agency level because I am not part of the
26:26
Speaker 2: executive branch, but I can tell you at the legislative level,
26:30
Speaker 2: I would hear some of my colleagues talk about these
26:33
Speaker 2: federal changes and it's just how awful they're going to
26:37
Speaker 2: be in terrible And then I'd show up for the
26:39
Speaker 2: committee and we were doing no work on the issue whatsoever.
26:42
Speaker 2: It was all plant. So I think the answer to
26:45
Speaker 2: your question is more than a year ago, when we
26:47
Speaker 2: knew some of these changes were coming, we should have
26:49
Speaker 2: been working with the governor and the agencies and goals
26:53
Speaker 2: in the FED to, hey, get our air rate down.
26:56
Speaker 2: Number one, because we don't know where that seven hundred
26:58
Speaker 2: millions years is going to come from if we don't
27:01
Speaker 2: meet the requirements of the states. And number two, figure out,
27:07
Speaker 2: start figuring out within the folks who aren't going to
27:09
Speaker 2: meet the work requirements or some of these other changes
27:14
Speaker 2: where the neediest families in there coming off are In
27:16
Speaker 2: other words, do some due diligence, needs space diligence to
27:20
Speaker 2: figure out are there folks that are deeply impacted and
27:24
Speaker 2: might need a program like this, and we've done none
27:27
Speaker 2: of that due diligence. Instead, we've waited until this moment
27:31
Speaker 2: and then we just handed out the canish that maybe
27:33
Speaker 2: it's just a cash handout, is what it is. So
27:38
Speaker 2: that would have been I think the best way to
27:40
Speaker 2: do it, and it was very intentionally not done that way.
27:43
Speaker 2: There's very little oversight of taxpayer funds in the States,
27:47
Speaker 2: and this program is an example of that due diligence
27:51
Speaker 2: not being done. It sounds very good and helpful and
27:55
Speaker 2: like a safy net program on the surface, and then
27:57
Speaker 2: once you dig in a little bit, you realize this
28:00
Speaker 2: was more about politics and tonsturing at the seventy million
28:05
Speaker 2: program when the bigger program, when the bigger problem is
28:08
Speaker 2: ten times that cost like seven hundred million a year,
28:12
Speaker 2: and we haven't solved that. So it shows you where
28:15
Speaker 2: the priorities are.
28:17
Speaker 1: Definitely something to keep our eyes on, and I'm sure
28:20
Speaker 1: a topic will be revisiting again in the future, that's
28:22
Speaker 1: for sure. You also, while while we have a few
28:26
Speaker 1: minutes left, when to touch on the House Speaker.
28:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, and this is when I'm still trying to
28:33
Speaker 2: figure out. So the Speaker was in Chicago talking about
28:39
Speaker 2: the Chicago public schools and funding levels. They have had
28:44
Speaker 2: huge loss in their studio population, They've had huge cost overruns,
28:50
Speaker 2: they've plenished their operating budget to pay pensions and other things,
28:55
Speaker 2: and they're just in very bad financial pay a lot
28:58
Speaker 2: of mismanagement combined with a lot of real dynamics including
29:05
Speaker 2: student population loss, that are hurting Chicago schools. And so
29:09
Speaker 2: there's been a lot more shifting of statewide money into
29:12
Speaker 2: Chicago to help solve that problem. And most recently the
29:18
Speaker 2: Speaker was talking to them in Chicago and promised them,
29:24
Speaker 2: and there's debate over whether he actually promised them anything
29:28
Speaker 2: support for another one hundred and fifty million from the
29:31
Speaker 2: state budget. Aaron him, We've already passed the state budget,
29:34
Speaker 2: so there's discussion of we're going to come back in
29:35
Speaker 2: Veto and hand out money after already having billions to
29:40
Speaker 2: bounce the budget as it was, to throw more money
29:44
Speaker 2: into the schools. One hundred and fifty million just for Chicago,
29:47
Speaker 2: and so for every senator representing any area outside of Chicago.
29:52
Speaker 2: This is a huge conflict of interest because the speaker
29:54
Speaker 2: is under fire politically within its caucus. He's looking to
29:58
Speaker 2: make people happy. That's the context for this promise. I
30:02
Speaker 2: just read recently. He's now saying, no, I didn't actually
30:04
Speaker 2: promise this one hundred and fifty million, you know, I
30:06
Speaker 2: just said we're going to be discussing it. But that
30:08
Speaker 2: is not the way anyone was taking it in the beginning.
30:12
Speaker 2: So these are the kind of things when political firestorms happen,
30:16
Speaker 2: that I think as a legislator we have to watch
30:18
Speaker 2: out for because it starts to affect policy. And I'm
30:23
Speaker 2: worried that's what's happening in the Speaker's case. Hears he's
30:27
Speaker 2: talking to interest groups that affect him politically. He's in
30:31
Speaker 2: a politically dangerous spot. Suddenly you see these multi millions,
30:34
Speaker 2: in this case of one hundred and fifty million discussions
30:39
Speaker 2: going into one specific region drawing from the whole state.
30:42
Speaker 2: And I have a big issue with that. And again,
30:46
Speaker 2: this is a case where where's the due diligence? Why
30:48
Speaker 2: are you making an argument that one school district should
30:51
Speaker 2: be getting an extra one hundred and fifty million outside
30:54
Speaker 2: of anything else, And no other school district is what
30:57
Speaker 2: is the policy basis for this? And as far as
30:59
Speaker 2: I can how, there hadn't been one. It was a
31:02
Speaker 2: political speech, and now the state might be preparing to
31:05
Speaker 2: dole out money. So that's one I'm keeping my eye on.
31:09
Speaker 2: I think that's one every district and region outside of
31:11
Speaker 2: Chicago to keep their eye on. And frankly, even if
31:14
Speaker 2: I was from Chicago, I would be pushing we need
31:17
Speaker 2: to reform and get our finances out our control before
31:20
Speaker 2: we ask for more bailouts.
31:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, quite a bit of money to go to one district.
31:24
Speaker 1: And then I mean, you know when you think of
31:26
Speaker 1: all the rural communities like ours, and it seems so
31:30
Speaker 1: much that Springfield kind of has smaller communities like ours
31:36
Speaker 1: in mind in secondhand when it comes to a lot
31:39
Speaker 1: of these policies, right, And.
31:42
Speaker 2: That's where I know. I hammer on these gery managed
31:44
Speaker 2: maps so much because they distort realities. They intentionally diminish
31:49
Speaker 2: the power of rural and exurban areas in favor of Chicago.
31:54
Speaker 2: And so people think of gery managed as Republican versus Democrat,
31:57
Speaker 2: and I keep trying to educate people that, well, that
32:00
Speaker 2: is one dynamic. The often bigger dynamic is it creates
32:04
Speaker 2: an urban versus rural and suburban dynamics. So when discussions
32:08
Speaker 2: like this happen and you say, well, how could this,
32:11
Speaker 2: how could this happen? How could you pull all this
32:13
Speaker 2: money into one school district, it's because the maps are
32:16
Speaker 2: not democratic. They are not a fair representation of where
32:19
Speaker 2: people are and what they think, and it just the
32:23
Speaker 2: store the outcomes terrible.
32:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you know you've been seeing you see this
32:28
Speaker 1: even more and more in the news lately. Not that
32:30
Speaker 1: it's a new problem by by any means, and just
32:33
Speaker 1: another one of those things that doesn't seem to be
32:35
Speaker 1: going away, just like when I was asking earlier, you know,
32:39
Speaker 1: like why haven't we solved this again? Seems to be
32:43
Speaker 1: another thing that a lot of you know, both sides,
32:46
Speaker 1: to one point or another, kind of seem to want
32:50
Speaker 1: to use to their advantage, right, And I think.
32:53
Speaker 2: The takeaway is that those in power get corupt like
32:57
Speaker 2: throw away the party lads. We're seeing a lot of
32:59
Speaker 2: that from democrat as Illinois because they have immense amounts
33:02
Speaker 2: of gerrymandered power. But in other states I would be
33:06
Speaker 2: completely unsurprised where Republicans have gerrymandered to see these very
33:10
Speaker 2: similar kinds of corruptions and financial abuses happen because when
33:15
Speaker 2: you have that much power, you just sometimes can't control yourself.
33:18
Speaker 2: And that's why I'm a big believe in reforming the
33:20
Speaker 2: systems themselves. It's not enough to just change people out.
33:24
Speaker 2: You actually have to reform the systems to prevent ethical violations,
33:28
Speaker 2: to prevent financial frauds, to bring in transparency, regardless of party,
33:34
Speaker 2: regardless of region. That is what we need. And if
33:37
Speaker 2: you know, Illinois is a great example. We've had Republican
33:40
Speaker 2: governors before. They need ethical reform as well. You know,
33:43
Speaker 2: a Republican governor has just as many lures to abuse
33:48
Speaker 2: the system as the democratic governor. We need to change
33:50
Speaker 2: the system.
33:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, that I could not agree with you more on there, Lee.
33:55
Speaker 1: Unfortunately we are out of time, but I really look
33:59
Speaker 1: forward to the next update we have, and I appreciate
34:02
Speaker 1: you always taking time to speak with me and inform
34:06
Speaker 1: our listeners on what's going on up in Springfield.
34:09
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Glad to be on. Hopefully I
34:11
Speaker 2: bring in good news one of these times.
34:14
Speaker 1: Well, it's politicsally, we all expect a bit of a
34:17
Speaker 1: sour taste in every bite.
34:20
Speaker 2: Have a good one drive safely,